With the outbreak of the imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine (NATO), the need to oppose this war from an internationalist standpoint, while exposing bourgeois pacifism, became more urgent than ever. In such circumstances, returning to the internationalist tradition of the workers’ movement and applying that tradition to present realities assumed renewed significance. This is because loyalty to internationalism is a principled and unconditional commitment; as long as class society endures, internationalism will remain a fundamental and valid principle.

In this regard, the International Communist Current took the initiative to organise an internationalist response to the war. The aim of this initiative was to enable groups opposing the war from an internationalist standpoint to resonate with a unified, clearer voice and on a broader scale ‒ expressing a fundamental and internationalist opposition to the imperialist war. This effort drew upon the tradition of the left wing of the Zimmerwald Conference and resulted in the publication of a joint statement by several internationalist communist left groups.[1] Although the number of signatories to this statement was limited, its primary significance lies in the very act of publishing a joint internationalist statement.

The limited number of groups that signed the joint statement, along with the events following its publication, demonstrated that this reality must be acknowledged: historical communist left has yet to overcome the fragmentation and sectarianism that dominate it. On the other hand, although today’s conditions are not comparable to those of 1915, they in some ways recall the fact that at the Zimmerwald Conference, the most determined forces were also in the minority; only eight delegates represented the left wing of the Zimmerwald Conference. A similar situation was evident regarding the publication of the joint statement by the communist left groups: the tendency opposing sectarianism and fragmentation, and advocating the formation of a unified voice against the imperialist war, remained in the minority. Nevertheless, it was the struggle of the Zimmerwald left wing, encapsulated by the slogan ‘Turning the imperialist war into a civil war,’ that paved the way for the October Revolution ‒ an event which, in turn, was a key stage in the process of the global revolution.

In a polemic with comrades from the International Communist Party (il Programma Comunista), we stated that the communist left groups who refused to sign the joint statement shirked their responsibilities, confined themselves to sectarianism, and failed to strengthen the voice of the communist left[2]. None of these groups that declined to sign the joint statement offered any specific critique of it, either at the time or afterwards.

Certainly, any critique from other communist left currents would have helped clarify the political milieu and contributed to the enrichment of communist left. For internationalists, discussions and polemic is a vital, necessary, and decisive matter. The revolutionary movement cannot take effective steps unless internationalists play an active and dynamic role in its growth and expansion. This can only be achieved through discussion, dialogue, and the confrontation of differing views within the proletarian political milieu. The purpose of these debates and dialogues should be to promote clarity within the proletarian political milieu; if any other aim is pursued, the discussion will not only fail to serve the transparency of the proletarian political milieu but may also foster confusion and misdirection. In a proletarian polemic, there are neither winners nor losers. In other words, victory is achieved when discussions lead to greater clarity in the proletarian political milieu, and failure occurs when they result in ambiguity and confusion.

Sometime after the publication of the joint statement, it was not the groups that had refused to sign it, but rather individuals, blogs, and sham, paper-thin groups who began to question the joint statement, create ambiguity around it, and even engage in its defamation and smear campaigns. This situation appeared all the more serious because these actions were carried out in the name of communist left.

In the summer of 2023, news emerged of a ‘Communist Left’ conference held in Brussels. Contrary to its title, this circus did not reflect the traditions of communist left, but rather resembled a gathering of individuals engaged in scattered and incongruous discussions. The composition of the participants and the manner in which the event was conducted suggested that the primary aim was not political clarification, but the expression of personal views and a display by individuals who, at best, largely represented councilist, modernist, radical phrase part of the left of capital, and similar tendencies ‒ albeit disguised under the guise of the communist left.

This gathering was organised with the aim of discrediting and downplaying the positions and struggles of the communist left, attempting to present itself as an alternative to the joint statement of the communist left groups ‒ an effort that was clearly at odds with the tradition and history of the communist left’s struggle.

In fact, this gathering was nothing more than a tribune for promoting a distorted and false version of the communist left; an attempt to create political and theoretical confusion among militants seeking a genuine communist alternative and leaning towards communist left tendencies. By distorting historical positions and deliberately sowing ambiguity, this project aimed to obstruct the growth and cohesion of the communist left.

Following that gathering, a conference was held in the summer of 2024 in Arezzo, Italy. Although this meeting continued the themes and objectives of the previous conference, two features distinguished it from the first assembly. Firstly, the publication of a concluding statement, which the Brussels conference lacked; and secondly, the presence of comrades from Battaglia Comunista at the conference, which lent it legitimacy.

One of our criticisms of comrades from the Internationalist Communist Tendency has been their lack of clarity in dealing with the radical phrase faction of the left of capital, as well as similar circles and individuals. Previously, we examined and offered specific critiques of the invitation extended by comrades of Battaglia Comunista to the Unity of Communist Militants for the Internationalist Conference in the early 1980s, in the book Workers-Communism, Radical Conscience of the Left of Capital. Criticisms regarding other instances have also been communicated to comrades of the Internationalist Communist Tendency via letters, emphasising that such a policy has had detrimental consequences for the communist left. Accordingly, we assess the participation of comrades from Battaglia Comunista in this so-called conference as a continuation of the same irresponsible approach, incompatible with the tradition of the communist left.[3]

Leaving aside the circuses held under the guise of conferences in opposition to the joint statement, a responsible and militant approach towards the statement would have been to welcome the minimal convergence that had emerged within the communist left in opposing the imperialist war, even where criticisms existed, and to regard this convergence as a positive development. At the same time, criticism from a Marxist perspective should have been aimed at further clarifying the proletarian political milieu, rather than channelling all efforts into discrediting the most combative tendencies of the communist left.

One individual who seemingly found the courage to draw his paper sword against the joint statement was C. Mcl, the owner of the website Controverses. However, he lacked the courage to attack the joint statement directly and, like a coward, pursued his vile objectives through slander against the International Communist Current and attempts to discredit the internationalist voice. The comrades of the International Communist Current have already responded to these slanders[4], and our focus will be on exposing the efforts to undermine the internationalist voice in order to weaken the joint statement.

C. Mcl appeared not as a critic but as a provocateur. His aim was not to engage in discussion to clarify the political milieu but to provoke a reaction from the internationalist voice. By resorting to lies, falsification, and discrediting tactics, he pursued his petty objectives. In an article entitled “A ‘Joint’ Reaction Against the War?” He wrote:

“What a flop! So, what political scene remains around the ICC? Only its hidden second section in Sweden: Internationalist Voice!”[5]

C .Mcl, adopting a detective-like approach, first uncovered a major mystery; then, like a skilled detective, he followed the clues step by step. Although he was unable to solve every aspect of the mystery, he revealed the hidden secret and found the answer concealed within a section. Ultimately, he announced the results of his investigation as follows:

“Regarding Internationalist Voice (IV):

An invited and signing group… now, that’s the great mystery! Unless we are mistaken, the ICC has never formally introduced this group, nor at least explained the existing differences between the ICC and IV that would justify a separate organisation. Indeed, according to the ICC’s statutes, there cannot be two different expressions of the same organisation within the same country. However, from reading Internationalist Voice, there appears to be no significant political divergence between it and the ICC. This raises the following question: given how long these two organisations have known each other, either the ICC must demonstrate that there are differences justifying two separate organisations, or it must show us the ongoing debates aimed at unification. As we find nothing either way on its website, the great mystery remains regarding the ICC’s true and exemplary method of debate and consolidation…Internationalist Voice, which is apparently nothing other than its second section in Sweden!”[6]

All of C. Mcl’s repulsive, abhorrent, and hypocritical manoeuvres form part of an organised attack on the communist left, the joint statement, and, in this particular case, on the internationalist voice itself. The seemingly internationalist façade of the statements made by such individuals, blogs, and websites, together with their manipulative use of the term “internationalism”, is a devious attempt to present themselves as internationalists and then use this fabricated position as a cover to more easily discredit the genuinely communist left and internationalist currents ‒ so that their lies, slanders, and provocations appear more credible.

We too were eager to respond to C. Mcl at the earliest opportunity. Firstly, we allowed him time to substantiate his delusional claims, should he truly believe in them. Secondly, unlike C. Mcl ‒ who, using repulsive and offensive language, launched a clumsy attempt to discredit the communist left through lies, slander, and defamation ‒ the internationalist voice was simultaneously engaged in a vigorous defence of the communist left against those who, like C. Mcl, had resorted to such base methods to undermine it.

Rather than becoming absorbed in an immediate reaction, the internationalist voice limited itself to issuing an official rebuttal and instead focused on its primary task: defending the dignity and honour of the communist left through the publication of a book entitled The Truth According to Třídní Válka, which was released simultaneously in several languages. Now, a year has passed, and C. Mcl has had ample time to substantiate his claims. What has been the result? A shameful silence and a stifled voice. Since C. Mcl is incapable of proving his lies and fabrications, let us resolve his so-called great mystery.

The Internationalist Voice considers itself part of the communist left tradition and explicitly defends this tradition. For this reason, in 2009, before officially announcing its existence, publishing its foundational positions, or making its website public, it sent a letter addressed to comrades of the International Communist Current and also to the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (which at that time had not yet changed its name to the Internationalist Communist Tendency) to inform them of its formation process. This action was not intended to seek their permission ‒ since the Internationalist Voice derives its very necessity from the contradiction between labour and capital ‒ but rather to ensure that the main tendencies of the communist left were aware of these developments within the proletarian political milieu.

Both groups had ample opportunity to review the website’s content before it was made public. After their examination, both provided positive feedback, welcomed the formation of the group, and wished it success. It was only after receiving this response that Internationalist Voice decided to make its website public. Subsequently, the foundational positions, along with a collection of other materials, were sent to comrades in the International Communist parties.

Now the question arises: how logical does this provocateur’s claim appear? Why would a “secret section” or “second section” of the International Communist Current, before announcing its existence, send a letter ‒ separate from the International Communist Current itself ‒ to the “International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party” to inform them of its formation?

Does C. Mcl not drown in shame at the sheer extent of his deliberate lies and falsifications when reading these lines? In March 1843, Marx wrote the following in a letter to Ruge:

“You look at me with a smile and ask: What is gained by that? No revolution is made out of shame. I reply: Shame is already revolution of a kind.”[7]

It is said that liars have poor memories; likewise, before resorting to falsification and mystery-making, C. Mcl forgot to check the archives of his own website. On 21 April 2010, a group of supporters of the communist left in Australia issued a statement, which Internationalist Voice translated, added an introduction to, and published on its website. At that time, C. Mcl even posted a link to Internationalist Voice’s translation on his own site.

Now we must ask: why did he not, at that time, claim that this translation had been carried out by a “secret section” or “second section” of the ICC?

Those unfamiliar with this website might assume it is a platform dedicated to discussion and exchange among communist leftists, publishing content in various languages. However, this is a completely mistaken impression and the result of a clumsy bluff. Years ago, one of the ideologues of the Islamic bourgeoisie, Dr Mohammad Qaraguzloo, shifted from the right wing of capital to its left wing. At that time, this website ‒ or whatever name one might give it ‒ republished Qaraguzloo’s articles. This situation could create the illusion, for those unfamiliar with the Persian language, that the site was publishing content from internationalists in Persian. Before we continue the discussion, we will point out just two remarks about Dr Qaraguzloo.

Dr Qaraguzloo, as one of the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, has a long history of defending the ideology of the ruling class and opposing Marxist thought. This same ideologist once questioned Marx in relation to the ideological superstructure of the Islamic bourgeoisie, which has created a hell on earth for the working class. He posed the question: if Marx had been familiar with the justice-oriented principles of Shi’ism, would he still have claimed that religion is the opium of the masses? In other words, he first sought to portray Shi’ism as justice-centred, then to depict Marx as ignorant and uninformed on philosophical matters, writing:

“The rise of Marxism, which claimed religion as the opium of the working class, saying that ‘In the event of a radical change in productive relations and the abolition of capitalist exploitation, religion will disappear’, in terms of credibility, is a kind of historical reaction to theocratic governments. Here, without going into the context of this process, it is not too far-fetched to ask whether Karl Marx was acquainted with the fundamental ideas of Islamic civilization and, in particular, Shiite principles of justice; and, instead of dealing with medieval priests, whether he would have argued with a philosopher like Mullah Hadi Sabzevari to insist that religion is the ‘opium of the masses’ and a barrier to historical progress, and justify ‘bourgeois-proletarian’ tyrannical relations?”[8]

Dr Qaraguzloo, this ideologist of capital, once wrote in praise of the octopus-like intelligence apparatus of the Islamic bourgeoisie ‒ an institution that knows no limits when it comes to crime, torture, imprisonment, and violation of dignity ‒ and also sought to justify the role of its criminal spiritual leader, the notorious Khamenei, stating:

“Taken together, these two goals, first and foremost, would drag Mohammad Khatami’s seizure policy into a completely blind and dark impasse. The conspiracy was barred by the intelligence of the Supreme Leader, the pursuit of the President, and the intelligence, tact and rationality of the Ministry of Information and the enlightenment of the press.”[9]

Words fail to describe the crimes committed by the Ministry of Intelligence and the tortures inflicted by this institution; merely mentioning its name is enough to send a shivers down one’s spine. Here, we will highlight just one manifestation of the “intelligence, wisdom, and rationality” of this repressive body: the coffin[10].

The purpose of republishing this bourgeois ideologue’s articles was to create the impression that the website was multilingual. However, Internationalist Voice, in defence of the communist left, opposed the dissemination of such nonsense under the name of the communist left and continues to do so. Therefore, on 15 May 2014, it issued a formal protest to this site and sent a copy of the letter to both the Internationalist Communist Tendency and the International Communist Current. Unfortunately, the International Communist Current remained silent on the matter. In contrast, comrades from the International Communistist Tendency responded to the protest, describing Internationalist Voice’s position as “a correct and wise decision.” The image below requires no explanation; it speaks for itself.

The fundamental question is: why did C. Mcl retreat into a shameful, tomb-like silence in 2014? Why, when confronted with his disgraceful scandal, was he rendered speechless, unable to respond, and lacking the courage to reply to the letter or to declare that the protest had been made by a “secret section” or “second section” of the ICC?

C. Mcl has repeatedly referred to “proletarian ethics” in a humorous tone in his writing, yet in practice, he has offered nothing but mockery and contempt for proletarian and communist ethics. Those who resort to lies and fabrications to achieve their petty aims lack the standing to speak of “proletarian ethics.”

A further fundamental question is why he remained in a deathly silence for years, unable to raise even a single query regarding the Internationalist Voice, only to break that silence following the publication of the joint statement, subsequently speaking out and dedicating all his efforts to discrediting both the joint statement and the Internationalist Voice.

This individual lacked the courage to even directly raise his questions throughout all these years, but after the publication of the joint statement, he resorted to fabrication and storytelling. These very reactions clearly demonstrate the significance of the joint statement, as political charlatans cannot tolerate even the slightest convergence among the communist left and resort to any lies and forgeries to discredit it. From our perspective, those who republish the nonsense of torturers’ admirers are just as disgusting, hateful, and contemptible as the torturers themselves.

C. Mcl’s website is more like a vacuum cleaner bag that collects rubbish from every corner. To give itself a revolutionary and appealing appearance, it occasionally turns to communist groups, gathering a few of their writings or linking to them. Aside from Dr Qaraguzloo’s materials, for example, the site also published a tribute to Lafif Lakhdar, described as follows:

“An Arab intellectual, writer, philosopher, and rationalist, active in Algeria, the Middle East, and France. Nicknamed the ’Arab Spinoza.’”[11]

The obituary described him as a defender of the proletarian revolution but apparently forgot to mention that he was also regarded as a supporter of council communism, since some prefer to label him as such. Lafif Lakhdar was just as much a defender of the proletarian revolution as Dr Qaraguzloo, who supports the proletarian revolution and the rise of workers’ councils (perhaps with the support of the Ministry of Intelligence!). He views the imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine (NATO) not as an imperialist conflict, but rather as a struggle against the Balkanisation of Russia.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Internationalist Voice ‒ or, as C. Mcl claims, the “second section of the ICC” ‒ in solidarity with other tendencies of the communist left, widely republished articles from the Internationalist Communist Tendency, the International Communist Current, and the International Communist Party on social media, and notified these groups of this action.

Furthermore, during the Russia–Ukraine (NATO) war, the Internationalist Voice, or as C. Mcl calls it, the “second section of the ICC,” published the views of various communist left tendencies in Persian. The aim was to present these tendencies’ positions on the war, in their own language and terms, to Persian-speaking audiences. Now the question arises: how logical is it that the “second section” or “secret section” of the ICC, as C. Mcl claims, instead of promoting its own views, extensively republishes the positions of other communist left tendencies on social media ‒ articles that have already been read thousands of times?

Does C. Mcl have the courage to hold his head high and answer for his lies and fabrications? Or is he so contemptible that he will persist in his disgraceful, cemetery-like silence?

Internationalist Voice proudly, and in comradely solidarity, published articles from various tendencies of the communist left, even when it did not fully agree with their analysis of the war. It is at such moments that the distinction between genuine communists and those seeking to discredit them becomes clear. Communist solidarity must be demonstrated through action ‒ not just claimed.

During the imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine (NATO), this same individual published a collection of links to the positions of various groups on his website. Regarding Internationalist Voice, he wrote: “Internationalist Voice: the position of this group.” But why did he not say: “the positions of the second section” or “the hidden section” of the ICC? If he truly believed that narrative, why had he not said so earlier?

By the way, what position has Dr. Qaraguzloo ‒ the same man who once accused Marx of ignorance and praised torturers ‒ taken on the imperialist war between Russia and Ukraine (NATO)? He is a staunch defender of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, a stance that aligns perfectly with the interests of the Islamic bourgeoisie.

Moreover, the Internationalist Voice has translated and published numerous articles from various communist left tendencies. The fundamental question for those genuinely seeking the truth is this: why would the Internationalist Voice ‒ or, as C. Mcl claims, the so-called “hidden section” or “second section” of the ICC ‒ offer such services to other tendencies instead of focusing solely on promoting the positions of the ICC itself?

Apparently, C. Mcl is so foolish, ignorant, and narrow-minded that he does not even consider the contradictions within his own fabrications. Nevertheless, for those who cannot bear the sight of a joint statement and resort to any means to discredit it, achieving their goals through lies, charlatanism, falsification, and distortion appears not only possible but also desirable and commendable.

C. Mcl has also falsely claimed that there is nothing on the Internationalist Voice website concerning theoretical polemics related to the ICC. It seems this liar subscribes to the saying, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” but this rule does not always work. A simple visit to the Internationalist Voice website is enough to expose C. Mcl’s Goebbels-like falsehoods. In recent times, no communist left current has republished as many texts from other communist left tendencies as Internationalist Voice, nor has any current published as many critiques of other communist left tendencies. It appears that C. Mcl believes ‒ just as he himself practises ‒ that one must engage in mudslinging against communist left currents or resort to lies, falsification, and distortion in order to present them as theoretical disagreements.[12]

C. Mcl has also belittled the content of the bulletins, suggesting that they lacked important and scholarly material. He wrote the following on the subject:

“Nothing… sorry, yes, a ‘mere juxtaposition of flashy analyses’ in the bulletin devoted to this statement (in fact, a juxtaposition of four two-page texts, plus one page reflecting on a few joint public meetings)!”[13]

The fundamental question is this: if the bulletins had contained writings from the praise-singers of torturers, admirers of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic bourgeoisie, or pieces such as the obituary of the “Arab Spinoza” and the like, would they then have been considered substantial from C. Mcl’s point of view?

The other lies, fabrications, and attempts to discredit by this political charlatan are of the same kind as those we examined earlier. In fact, C. Mcl is exacting revenge on his own past ‒ when he was a member of a communist left group. The approach of such individuals is very familiar to us, especially if they have spent some time in prison for political reasons or have lost loved ones to the repressive apparatus and no longer hold their former beliefs. They come to believe that all those years and sacrifices were in vain. Consequently, they become hostile towards their own past and abandon all principles and values in their enmity. C. Mcl is no exception.

Those who lacked the courage to openly wield their paper swords against the joint statement, and instead chose to fling mud at it between the lines, are of the same ilk as C. Mcl, even if they appear to disagree with him. The more these individuals, blogs, or paper groups struggle to discredit the communists, the deeper they sink into their own filth, polluting the surrounding atmosphere and exposing their own disgrace all the more.

The joint statement was the most valuable initiative in the communist left movement since the internationalist conferences of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The achievements of this statement are not merely temporary but have a long-term significance. It was not simply a matter of issuing a statement; rather, it outlined a horizon demonstrating that, despite theoretical differences in analysing the war, it is possible to protest against the war with a unified voice. These theoretical differences should not only remain visible but should also be addressed and even expanded upon through discussion bulletins. In line with this, meetings were held to advance the goals of the joint statement. The Internationalist Voice did not merely put its name under the statement but, throughout all stages, endeavoured to fulfil its internationalist duties to the best of its ability.

The tradition of striving to overcome sectarianism must be strengthened. This strengthening should never mean sweeping theoretical differences under the carpet; rather, it means that while recognising these differences, it is both possible and necessary to protest against the brutality of capital with a unified voice, and at the same time engage in discussion and even polemic in a spirit of comradeship to clarify the proletarian political milieu. Only under such conditions can communist lefts fulfil their historic role in important events.

Throughout the history of the labour movement, individuals, paper organisations, and even some serious leftist groups have attempted in various ways to weaken communist forces. Exposing the anti-communist nature of these elements is an inseparable part of the class struggle; however, the primary focus must remain on the fundamental objective: intervening in the class struggle and striving to prepare for the establishment of the international and internationalist communist party, without which the realisation of the global communist revolution will not be possible.

Internationalist Voice

26 July 2025

Notes:

[1] Correspondence relating to the drafting and publication process of the joint statement is included in Bulletin No. 1.

[2] Polemic with the International Communist Party (il Programma Comunista): Marxism or Schapperism?

[3] In the book Workers-Communism, Radical Conscience of the Left of Capital, although we criticise the invitation extended to the Unity of Communist Militants to the Fourth Internationalist Conference, a significant portion is devoted to a forceful response to Hamid Taqvaee, the current Secretary-General of the Worker-communist Party of Iran and a founder of the Unity of Communist Militants. In December 1985, he attempted to discredit the communist left by publishing a text entitled Critique of the Platform of the Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista).

[4] The difference between the vacuity of a presumptuous blogger and the solidity of an organisation rooted in the tradition of the workers’ movement.

[5] Controverses.

[6] As source 5.

[7] Marx to Ruge.

[8] State and Development.

[9] Dialogue of Civilizations.

[10] The coffin ‒ imagine a box, about two meters long with a width of 75 cm and 90 cm height. The blindfolded prisoner would squat from 6 am to 10 pm, and at ten o’clock at night would lie, still blindfolded. He would be led blindfolded to the toilet three times a day, which would take around one to three minutes, and was only allowed to take her/his blindfold off in the toilet. Food was given three times a day, which would be eaten blindfolded. Any sound, even if they were to be interpreted as evidence, would of course be followed with cable handling. This process continued for months. All efforts were based on the assumption that the prisoner would lose her/his mind and control over their thoughts, and would feel herself/himself to be a humble and low man who has betrayed the rule of God on earth. Those who finally broke and repented were brought in front of the other resistance prisoners. The repented prisoner, crying remorsefully, would declare that he/she was a humble human who had betrayed God and was Marxist, but would now admit the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.

[11] Lafif Lakhadar.

[12] In its critiques of other communist left currents, Internationalist Voice never forgets that it is engaging in discussion, and even debate, with its comrades and class brothers and sisters. Since the aim of such criticism is to bring clarity to the proletarian political milieu, these critiques have always been sent to the relevant organisations prior to being made public. This approach will continue to be upheld.

[13] As source 5.

 

Download as PDF